avi_ny
09-28 09:48 AM
Got the GC cards in yesterday's mail.
wallpaper Megan Fox to remove Marilyn
reddymjm
08-07 03:51 PM
Lets say some miracle happens and EB3 becomes current and EB2 backlogged,
all these calling Us and Lawsuit guys will be the first one to port their PD.
all these calling Us and Lawsuit guys will be the first one to port their PD.
ItIsNotFunny
11-10 11:07 AM
I am sorry if I am wrong, but do you think if IV CORE try to hold a meeting with top CIS officials on this issue, wouldn't that be more effective? Many members reported not getting proper response to letters. Who knows whether anyone @CIS has time & willingness to read and act on our letters? Why not take an active approach rather than passive one?
I agree, We still should send the letters though. I will send mine by monday Nov. 10. Meanwhile, if we can do the webfax or email, we may can have more members participate. just my 2 cents!
So far not even 100 participants to the event. This lack of action is killing us. I sincerely thank people who sent mails.
I agree, We still should send the letters though. I will send mine by monday Nov. 10. Meanwhile, if we can do the webfax or email, we may can have more members participate. just my 2 cents!
So far not even 100 participants to the event. This lack of action is killing us. I sincerely thank people who sent mails.
2011 megan fox, tattoo marilyn
rsharma
06-15 12:09 AM
Do you know why we are having GC delays ?
1. Country cap for visa numbers
2. Visa numbers wasted by USCIS by their inefficiency
EB1 visa never belonged to EB2 or EB3 category. What if there were enough genuine EB1 people to claim all the EB1 visas. There won't be any spillovers. Spillovers are bonuses. It is never our right to claim those.
If you want your GC faster, work with IV for country cap removal and recapture.
Have you donated a single dime for IV's cause ?We always find it easy to go against fellow immigrants than fighting the injustice at root.
Look at the following thread to see how easy it is to resolve GC issues if country caps are removed.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=26465
Dear Mr./Ms. gc28262
My understanding is this is a forum where we can express our thoughts without any fear or prejudice.
I agree with you that the main reason for the GC delay is the two causes you have mentioned. The Country cap is based on the current law (I am not saying the law is good). However along with the main causes for the delay the fraudulent uses of EB1 visa #s are also causing extra delay. Thus along with the effort to remove the main cause of delay we should work on the other cause of delays too.
I am also agreeing that as per the current law the L1A - Senior Level Manager can get their GC processed as EB1 and get GC within six months. I agree that this is the current law.
My main concern is the misuse of this law. People who should not get L1A visa are getting L1A using fraud and taking the EB1 visas which otherwise as per law would have trickled down to EB2.
You may be ok with the fraud being done by many of the L1A visa holders and their sponsors. However I am not and I shall support any steps taken by the IV member "L1Fraud".
You may think that the spillovers are bonuses and it�s ok if we do not get them. I differ with you; I feel if someone using fraudulent methods takes our bonuses away we need to protest against that.
Regarding donating to IV think I am not accountable to you. Please note that this is a forum where everyone can express their views without attacking each other personally.
I respect your views and hope to get the same from you :).
1. Country cap for visa numbers
2. Visa numbers wasted by USCIS by their inefficiency
EB1 visa never belonged to EB2 or EB3 category. What if there were enough genuine EB1 people to claim all the EB1 visas. There won't be any spillovers. Spillovers are bonuses. It is never our right to claim those.
If you want your GC faster, work with IV for country cap removal and recapture.
Have you donated a single dime for IV's cause ?We always find it easy to go against fellow immigrants than fighting the injustice at root.
Look at the following thread to see how easy it is to resolve GC issues if country caps are removed.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=26465
Dear Mr./Ms. gc28262
My understanding is this is a forum where we can express our thoughts without any fear or prejudice.
I agree with you that the main reason for the GC delay is the two causes you have mentioned. The Country cap is based on the current law (I am not saying the law is good). However along with the main causes for the delay the fraudulent uses of EB1 visa #s are also causing extra delay. Thus along with the effort to remove the main cause of delay we should work on the other cause of delays too.
I am also agreeing that as per the current law the L1A - Senior Level Manager can get their GC processed as EB1 and get GC within six months. I agree that this is the current law.
My main concern is the misuse of this law. People who should not get L1A visa are getting L1A using fraud and taking the EB1 visas which otherwise as per law would have trickled down to EB2.
You may be ok with the fraud being done by many of the L1A visa holders and their sponsors. However I am not and I shall support any steps taken by the IV member "L1Fraud".
You may think that the spillovers are bonuses and it�s ok if we do not get them. I differ with you; I feel if someone using fraudulent methods takes our bonuses away we need to protest against that.
Regarding donating to IV think I am not accountable to you. Please note that this is a forum where everyone can express their views without attacking each other personally.
I respect your views and hope to get the same from you :).
more...
gcny2006
07-11 12:17 AM
This is a three page article, but worth the read. Especially, I didn't think it would mention my name -->
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html?referrer=emailarticle
Redemption Maan !!
Anand Sharma
I hate to be nitpicking but
The irony is, in this whole migration debate, our issues are probably easiest to solve," said Bajaj.
Bajaj its not migrationits immigration. bird migrate people immigrate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html?referrer=emailarticle
Redemption Maan !!
Anand Sharma
I hate to be nitpicking but
The irony is, in this whole migration debate, our issues are probably easiest to solve," said Bajaj.
Bajaj its not migrationits immigration. bird migrate people immigrate
InTheMoment
10-02 01:42 AM
It is simply crazy of USCIS, but it is not beyond commonsense for us to realize that the notice was mailed in last few hours of the previous FY, so there might have been those hiccups between USCIS and DoS systems releasing the last few visa numbers.
Understand that you might well be current for this FY but the notice was generated in September. So now you should do your best to make sure your file is not relegated under a big heap somewhere... as others so rightly suggest, the congressperson route should serve well.
I recieved 2 notices in mail today.
One is the welcome notices which says that I-485 is approved.
Another notice which says that they reviewing or reconsidering the decision previously taken.
Called 1-800 # and the infopass. They say that reopened or reconsidering the case as the visa numbers retrogressed.
How can that be when am current in oct as well.
Mine is EB2 and the priority date is Dec 2004.
Any suggestions to have this fixed.
Understand that you might well be current for this FY but the notice was generated in September. So now you should do your best to make sure your file is not relegated under a big heap somewhere... as others so rightly suggest, the congressperson route should serve well.
I recieved 2 notices in mail today.
One is the welcome notices which says that I-485 is approved.
Another notice which says that they reviewing or reconsidering the decision previously taken.
Called 1-800 # and the infopass. They say that reopened or reconsidering the case as the visa numbers retrogressed.
How can that be when am current in oct as well.
Mine is EB2 and the priority date is Dec 2004.
Any suggestions to have this fixed.
more...
rtiwari73
10-01 10:43 PM
Me and my wife had done finger printing on 09/10. On 09/15my wife got the clearnace from FBI and it is loaded into the system. I went to local immigration office and they did some searched and they told me that FBI loaded my finger printing detail using my social security number and not by the A number. Local IO can see the finger printing but when I called the Texas office they said they can't see the FP detail, and i tried again after some time got hold of another IO and she was able to search by my first and last name and saw in the system.
I opened an SR got a response that my FP is not received from FBI. So confusion is some IO officer who is trying other option to do search are able to see but not all the IO and that is delaying my approval process.
Any help or suggestion will be appreciated
I opened an SR got a response that my FP is not received from FBI. So confusion is some IO officer who is trying other option to do search are able to see but not all the IO and that is delaying my approval process.
Any help or suggestion will be appreciated
2010 the Next Marilyn Monroe…
gc_chahiye
06-25 01:02 AM
cannot locate my wife's OPT card from 2003
all other documents for status are available
how important is that card?
any way to get a duplicate/copy??
you might be able to get a duplicate by contacting the college/university.
my case is somewhat similar, but I dont have that option: I was on L2-EAD and I cannot find that damn EAD card (needed for filing EAD based on I485). However I do have the older I-797 so can atleast prove status...
all other documents for status are available
how important is that card?
any way to get a duplicate/copy??
you might be able to get a duplicate by contacting the college/university.
my case is somewhat similar, but I dont have that option: I was on L2-EAD and I cannot find that damn EAD card (needed for filing EAD based on I485). However I do have the older I-797 so can atleast prove status...
more...
PlainSpeak
04-06 08:32 AM
And their news page has also changed to reflect this "modest" movement (previously it stated - "the movement will not be weeks or months but could be years")
On both extremes, it's nothing but just an attempt to generate traffic to the website I guess.
Interesting that he claims - the modest movement will be because of the 7% country cap. In my understanding, it does not apply when spiilover happens (plz correct me if I am wrong)
Yes you are right ..
Country caps are not followed or implemented in spillover visas. Why do you think EB2I moved to May 2006 last year July 2010
On both extremes, it's nothing but just an attempt to generate traffic to the website I guess.
Interesting that he claims - the modest movement will be because of the 7% country cap. In my understanding, it does not apply when spiilover happens (plz correct me if I am wrong)
Yes you are right ..
Country caps are not followed or implemented in spillover visas. Why do you think EB2I moved to May 2006 last year July 2010
hair suggest Megan Fox#39;s tattoo
sri1309
08-22 06:00 PM
One more thing to not miss it to request "dumping of the 50,000 diversity visas done by lottery". Why the hell should that many visas be thrown away like the way its done now. If looked thru the lens, this category makes no sense atall.
Sri.
Sri.
more...
english_august
07-11 01:08 AM
Please make the New York Times article and the Washington Post article the most viewed and most emailed articles on the site
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/11visa.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071002055.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/11visa.html
hot Megan-Fox-Marilyn-Monroe-
letstalklc
08-27 12:27 PM
Hi pointelesswait,
When we say ‘free’ we mean that you don’t have to pay additional charges per minute to call India, or to any of the more than 60 countries that we’ve added to our Vonage World plan, on top of the monthly $24.99 flat rate. Some other phone companies ask you to pay your monthly service fee, and pay hefty ‘per-minute’ long-distance charge. But with Vonage World, you pay one flat monthly fee, and you can call home all you like. Let me know any additional questions! You can reach me on Twitter @Vonage_Voice (http://twitter.com/Vonage_Voice).
Best,
Michael
Michael,
I know you are trying to promote vonage, but not addressing the issues in terms of cancellation.
One more thing is that the taxes on the service, which is really killing part, for new yorkers, have to pay almsot 9 dollars in taxes, which is 35% of the monthly bill (24.99), it's too much when we compare with other VOIP services....
State/Local Taxes and Fees $3.44
FUSF (VoIP) $2.41
Regulatory and Compliance Fee $1.49
Emergency 911 Service Fee $1.49
Hope vonage will come up with some thing better than this, aslo there is 5000 minutes restriction on outgoing, it doesnt matter whether you called local or international, every minute counts.....guys beware of that limit, I know 5K is lot many minutes, but still you have to monitor, if it exceeds, the account will be changed to Business and have to pay more monthly.....
Also it would be great if you guys can come up with a feature that calling from cell phone by using vonage account.....with this option, more customers can sign up, offcourse customer service has to imrpove lot....
When we say ‘free’ we mean that you don’t have to pay additional charges per minute to call India, or to any of the more than 60 countries that we’ve added to our Vonage World plan, on top of the monthly $24.99 flat rate. Some other phone companies ask you to pay your monthly service fee, and pay hefty ‘per-minute’ long-distance charge. But with Vonage World, you pay one flat monthly fee, and you can call home all you like. Let me know any additional questions! You can reach me on Twitter @Vonage_Voice (http://twitter.com/Vonage_Voice).
Best,
Michael
Michael,
I know you are trying to promote vonage, but not addressing the issues in terms of cancellation.
One more thing is that the taxes on the service, which is really killing part, for new yorkers, have to pay almsot 9 dollars in taxes, which is 35% of the monthly bill (24.99), it's too much when we compare with other VOIP services....
State/Local Taxes and Fees $3.44
FUSF (VoIP) $2.41
Regulatory and Compliance Fee $1.49
Emergency 911 Service Fee $1.49
Hope vonage will come up with some thing better than this, aslo there is 5000 minutes restriction on outgoing, it doesnt matter whether you called local or international, every minute counts.....guys beware of that limit, I know 5K is lot many minutes, but still you have to monitor, if it exceeds, the account will be changed to Business and have to pay more monthly.....
Also it would be great if you guys can come up with a feature that calling from cell phone by using vonage account.....with this option, more customers can sign up, offcourse customer service has to imrpove lot....
more...
house megan fox marilyn tattoo
gc28262
08-21 12:11 PM
If phone companies resort to misleading advertisements, you can complain to FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
FCC Consumer Complaints (http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm)
FCC Consumer Complaints (http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm)
tattoo fox marilyn monroe tattoo
kate123
03-31 10:21 AM
May be I am wrong. I want to be wrong since I would like to File for I 485 , but this is from DOS site, can you share your source ?
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableV.pdf
Hi GC ON DEMAND, I think you are right... Looks like we did not receive any spill over from EB1 and EB2 ROW --- Here are the calcs...
Regular EB2 ROW gets 34,436 -- see below for break down
We know that EB2 gets 140,000 * 28.6% of visas which is 40,040.
Out of 40,040, 7% is allocated to china and an other 7% goes to India.
So EB2 ROW = 40,040 - 2*(40,040*7%) = 34,436 -------------------------------------------- (1)
In the document that you have, EB2 ROW received 27, 406 visas... How? see below
Total allocation for Eb2 (A1) - 53,872
India received (B1) - 19,961
China's received (C1) - 6,505
-------------------------------------------------
EB2 (ROW) net = A1-(B1+C1) = 27,406 -------------------------------------------------------- (2)
--------------------------------------------------
EB2 (I&C) Regular quota {2*(40,040*7%)} = 5,604 -------------------------------------------(3)
(1) - (2) - (3) gives the spill over from EB2 ROW to EB2 (I&C), which is 1,426
Which means EB2 ROW to EB2 I&C spill over is mere 1,426 ???? Hope we are wrong... this looks scary...
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY10AnnualReport-TableV.pdf
Hi GC ON DEMAND, I think you are right... Looks like we did not receive any spill over from EB1 and EB2 ROW --- Here are the calcs...
Regular EB2 ROW gets 34,436 -- see below for break down
We know that EB2 gets 140,000 * 28.6% of visas which is 40,040.
Out of 40,040, 7% is allocated to china and an other 7% goes to India.
So EB2 ROW = 40,040 - 2*(40,040*7%) = 34,436 -------------------------------------------- (1)
In the document that you have, EB2 ROW received 27, 406 visas... How? see below
Total allocation for Eb2 (A1) - 53,872
India received (B1) - 19,961
China's received (C1) - 6,505
-------------------------------------------------
EB2 (ROW) net = A1-(B1+C1) = 27,406 -------------------------------------------------------- (2)
--------------------------------------------------
EB2 (I&C) Regular quota {2*(40,040*7%)} = 5,604 -------------------------------------------(3)
(1) - (2) - (3) gives the spill over from EB2 ROW to EB2 (I&C), which is 1,426
Which means EB2 ROW to EB2 I&C spill over is mere 1,426 ???? Hope we are wrong... this looks scary...
more...
pictures Megan Fox is an obvious fan of
iv_only_hope
01-11 01:53 PM
http://helpniloufer.org/
dresses Megan explains some of her
gimme_GC2006
04-08 11:05 PM
I am in for this.
If some one has entered US legally and filed for GC, it means (most of the cases) they will wish to naturalize at some point..Technically once GC is approved path to citizenship steps up.
I like this idea of pushing for citizenship..but I would like to remove the clauses of measuring length of stay from 140-approved or 485-applied etc.
Why shouldnt we say, anyone who worked in US for 5 years (which means paying taxes etc)
should be naturalized directly ...When they can make illegals legals why not us?
Do we have a group in Linkedin? If not, I can take up the responsibility of spreading through Linkeid groups for support (I dont like facebook so I am not on it and Linkedid is supposedly a professional network)
If some one has entered US legally and filed for GC, it means (most of the cases) they will wish to naturalize at some point..Technically once GC is approved path to citizenship steps up.
I like this idea of pushing for citizenship..but I would like to remove the clauses of measuring length of stay from 140-approved or 485-applied etc.
Why shouldnt we say, anyone who worked in US for 5 years (which means paying taxes etc)
should be naturalized directly ...When they can make illegals legals why not us?
Do we have a group in Linkedin? If not, I can take up the responsibility of spreading through Linkeid groups for support (I dont like facebook so I am not on it and Linkedid is supposedly a professional network)
more...
makeup Megan Fox is getting her
jayleno
01-13 03:31 PM
Looks like Obmudsman office have acknowledged the problem. Just read this on their site
......
However, the Ombudsman understands that USCIS may deny the Form I-485 in cases of portability (the ability to change jobs) before first issuing a Notice of Intent to Deny in certain limited circumstances. These include, for example, where the beneficiary is ineligible for the benefits of the Form I-485 by statute, or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the Form I-485 was pending for 180 days........
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm
Once again a big Thank You to all of the volunteers behind this campaign.
......
However, the Ombudsman understands that USCIS may deny the Form I-485 in cases of portability (the ability to change jobs) before first issuing a Notice of Intent to Deny in certain limited circumstances. These include, for example, where the beneficiary is ineligible for the benefits of the Form I-485 by statute, or the Form I-140 is withdrawn before the Form I-485 was pending for 180 days........
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1221837986181.shtm
Once again a big Thank You to all of the volunteers behind this campaign.
girlfriend shoulder i Marilyn monroe
cbpds
04-05 04:08 PM
One might get a better answer from this thread
Donor Forum: Analysis for EB2IC based on new..
Donor Forum: Analysis for EB2IC based on new..
hairstyles Megan Fox#39;s forearm tattoo—a
HV000
08-10 09:45 AM
These are stupid quotes that will only make the situation worse. The real solution is to make the fingerprinting independent of the green card process. There is no point in trying to push for a faster name check in the post 9-11 world, it will be shot down legitimately. We need to make sensible suggestions not demands.
YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT!!!
YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT!!!
chanduv23
06-14 06:52 AM
I agree to what you say. The intend of this thred is not to support/oppose the outsourcing/offshoring the jobs. The intent of this thred is the fradulent use of L1s by the offshoring companies.
If these companies play as per law then there is no issue. Everything is OK in moderation even outsourcing or offshoring. However these companies does fraudulent use of the L1s. They send endless people in L1s. Even if the person does not have hire/fire authority he/she is sent as L1A. General java/Oracle/.net developers are sent in L1A or L1B.
These people with L1s are placed at client location and they work under supervision of client manager. False names are shown in the chart under these L1As benefeciary when they are applied for renewals.
These things should be reported and should not be supported.
Falsifying information is not right. If you have credible information and knowledge - write about this in detail. Let people know, what's going on.
If these companies play as per law then there is no issue. Everything is OK in moderation even outsourcing or offshoring. However these companies does fraudulent use of the L1s. They send endless people in L1s. Even if the person does not have hire/fire authority he/she is sent as L1A. General java/Oracle/.net developers are sent in L1A or L1B.
These people with L1s are placed at client location and they work under supervision of client manager. False names are shown in the chart under these L1As benefeciary when they are applied for renewals.
These things should be reported and should not be supported.
Falsifying information is not right. If you have credible information and knowledge - write about this in detail. Let people know, what's going on.
Macaca
12-05 03:59 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, Lou, you�ve been well known for years now, especially dealing with the issue of American corporations exporting jobs and criticizing that whole process of exporting American jobs overseas.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your�but also the criticism of it, that as I�ve seen it as, oftentimes does not deal with the impact so much of what this globalization on those countries themselves. In other words, you criticize NAFTA for sending so many jobs overseas, but not with the impact so much that it�s having on Mexico and on these other countries that are the other end of this free trade.
LOU DOBBS: Juan, that may be because I�m a television journalist, limited in my intellect, as well as my time.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this show, we don�t have commercials, so we have a lot of time to get into the issues.
LOU DOBBS: The reality is that, of course, NAFTA is, in my judgment, at least deleterious to the interests of the Mexican people and to the state of Mexico. One only has to look at the empty villages in particularly southern Mexico to examine the impact of the agricultural policies within NAFTA. One only has to look at the maquiladoras across northern Mexico to see the impact on a society that is already 50% impoverished, education levels still where they were thirty years ago in Mexico.
But my perspective is an American one. And I won�t presume to speak for Mexico, as Felipe Calderon does presume to speak to the United States for Americans on American policy. The reality is that NAFTA doesn�t work for this country. It doesn�t work for Mexico.
But I am not one of those people�as Amy was talking about, my detractors. The suggestion I�m anti-immigrant, for example, is absurd. I would support an increase in lawful immigration and have said so repeatedly and have no problem whatsoever with current levels of immigration, which, by the way, are the highest levels of immigration in the world�in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. We bring in more than two million people. But the issue is one that the United States does not have a foreign policy toward Mexico. We�re paternalistic and condescending toward Mexico in our dealings with Mexico, both corporately and politically. And it�s time for that to change.
LOU DOBBS: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And your�but also the criticism of it, that as I�ve seen it as, oftentimes does not deal with the impact so much of what this globalization on those countries themselves. In other words, you criticize NAFTA for sending so many jobs overseas, but not with the impact so much that it�s having on Mexico and on these other countries that are the other end of this free trade.
LOU DOBBS: Juan, that may be because I�m a television journalist, limited in my intellect, as well as my time.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, on this show, we don�t have commercials, so we have a lot of time to get into the issues.
LOU DOBBS: The reality is that, of course, NAFTA is, in my judgment, at least deleterious to the interests of the Mexican people and to the state of Mexico. One only has to look at the empty villages in particularly southern Mexico to examine the impact of the agricultural policies within NAFTA. One only has to look at the maquiladoras across northern Mexico to see the impact on a society that is already 50% impoverished, education levels still where they were thirty years ago in Mexico.
But my perspective is an American one. And I won�t presume to speak for Mexico, as Felipe Calderon does presume to speak to the United States for Americans on American policy. The reality is that NAFTA doesn�t work for this country. It doesn�t work for Mexico.
But I am not one of those people�as Amy was talking about, my detractors. The suggestion I�m anti-immigrant, for example, is absurd. I would support an increase in lawful immigration and have said so repeatedly and have no problem whatsoever with current levels of immigration, which, by the way, are the highest levels of immigration in the world�in fact, more than the rest of the world combined. We bring in more than two million people. But the issue is one that the United States does not have a foreign policy toward Mexico. We�re paternalistic and condescending toward Mexico in our dealings with Mexico, both corporately and politically. And it�s time for that to change.